Related Stories

What does Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity have to do with the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV)?

What does acid rain have to do with the fact tobacco smoking causes lung cancer?

What does Reye's syndrome have in common with the CFCs that caused the hole in the ozone layer?

And what do all those issues have to do with the fact our climate is rapidly changing due to human greenhouse gas emissions?

The answer is that in all those cases, solid scientific evidence was met with vociferous opposition.

The historical evidence is overwhelming that some of that opposition has been organised by vested interests, often successfully delaying political and regulatory action that posed a perceived threat to corporate profits. The peer-reviewed literature has clearly identified the subterfuge, distortion and manufacture of doubt with which vested interests delayed the control of tobacco, CFCs and sulphur emissions.

Even relatively small threats to profits can cause vested interests to spring into obfuscatory action as is revealed by the case involving the makers of aspirin. Aspirin consumption by children with viral illnesses increases the risk of Reye's syndrome — fatal in one third of all patients — by 4,000 per cent.

When this evidence became known, the aspirin industry geared up a counter-campaign that delayed the introduction of simple warning labels on their products about the risk of Reye's syndrome by more than five years.

Before the warning labels became mandatory in the US, some 500 cases were reported annually; today, less than a handful of cases are reported each year.

The unnecessary death toll is readily obtained by multiplication.

The death toll from inaction on climate change, currently estimated by the World Health Organisation to be at 150,000 annually, is incomparably greater. Sadly, this is set to rise further in light of the organised manufacture of doubt by vested interests and their enablers in the media.

Merchants of doubt

Much has been written about those "merchants of doubt" and the mendacious media malpractice, which has created a chimerical public "debate" about issues were long ago resolved in the scientific literature.

However, although those powerful factors must not be underestimated, they are only part of the story and two other issues must be considered.

First, organised opposition to science can arise for reasons other than a perceived threat to corporate profits.

Second, forestalling political action requires more than just organised opposition to scientific evidence — that opposition must also fall on fertile ground in the public. No disinformation campaign can succeed without a "market" of consumers willing to buy into it. So what makes average citizens receptive to such a campaign?

To illustrate the first point, examination of the opposition to Einstein's theory of relativity reveals no obvious involvement of financial interests (which is not to minimise a political component involving nationalism and anti-semitism).

Intriguingly, a primary factor behind the opposition to Einstein within the scientific community arguably arose out of the thwarted career aspirations of physicists unable to cope with his revolutionary ideas.

Relativity threatened the "knowledge systems" of Einstein's opponents; dearly-held ideas such as the ephemeral "ether" presumed to occupy outer space or the invariance of time were destined for the dustbin if relativity proved to be correct — as of course it has. Those threats were sufficient for Einstein's scientific opponents to hold a rambunctious rally in Berlin's Philharmonic Hall during which he was denounced as a fraud.

Threat is the key word here. Threats to financial interests. Threats to one's career or to one's ability to keep pace with rapidly evolving revolutionary knowledge.

The notion of threat is key to understanding the rejection of evidence; whether it's by vested interests, by mediocre scientists fearful of becoming outdated, or by the public at large when confronted by inconvenient science.

The public can feel threatened by scientific issues at many levels and for many reasons.

Threat to worldview

Perhaps most relevant to present public debate are threats to people's "worldviews" — the very fundamental beliefs people hold about how the world should be organised.

Worldviews come in many shades and forms, but one prominent distinction — popularised by Professor Dan Kahan at Yale University - is between people whose worldview is "hierarchical-individualistic" and those whose worldview is "egalitarian-communitarian".

Hierarchical-individualistic people (HI from here on) believe rights, duties, goods, and offices should be distributed differentially and on the basis of people's own decisions without collective interference or assistance.

Egalitarian-communitarian (EC) people, by contrast, believe rights and goods should be distributed more equally and society should bear partial responsibility for securing the conditions of individual flourishing.

Like all binary classifications, the distinction between HI and EC worldviews lacks nuance and oversimplifies the complexity of human worldviews. Nonetheless, the distinction is extremely powerful and permits prediction of people's attitudes towards numerous scientific issues.

Perhaps not surprisingly, HI individuals are more likely to resist acceptance of climate science than EC individuals.

Why?

Because implicit in the message we get from climate science is the need to alter the way we currently do business. The spectre of regulation looms large, and so does the (imaginary) World Government or other interventions — such as multilateral agreements — that are anathema to the notion that individuals, not governments or societies, determine their own fate.

To manage that threat to an HI worldview, the fundamental laws of physics underlying climate science must be denied. The greenhouse properties of CO2 may have been known for 150 years, but those indubitable physical facts cannot compete with the need to protect free enterprise from the threats posed by socialism, communism, Nazism, Green "watermelons", a corrupt IPCC, Greenpeace, the all-powerful solar-energy lobby, to name but a few of the imaginary monsters and enemies that are awakened by the peer-reviewed evidence.

Lest one think it is only climate change that elicits such emotion and seemingly irrational behaviour, similar effects arise with issues such as mandatory HPV vaccinations.

Although at first glance one might think protecting young women from cervical cancer is a worthwhile goal, HPV vaccinations have turned into an emotive and highly politicised issue.

Why?

Because mandatory vaccinations give control to the state over parental decisions. Because the protection afforded by the vaccine may encourage young women to engage in sex. The resulting perceived threat to an HI worldview outweighs, for those individuals, the threat posed by cervical cancer itself.

Worldview is crucial to understanding people's risk perception. And it is not only HI individuals who respond to threats to their worldviews; for EC individuals there are mirror images involving nuclear power or nanotechnology.

It is revealing to analyse how far people are prepared to go when they are exposed to belief-threatening scientific evidence. In one study, people dismissed the scientific method itself when confronted with threatening information. People will rather declare that an issue cannot be resolved scientifically than accept evidence that's in opposition to their threatened beliefs.

In light of these data it's not surprising there can be yawning gaps between scientific knowledge and public acceptance of that knowledge. Those situations necessarily cause immense frustration to the scientific community because, after all, the scientists believe they know, whereas segments of the public seem to deny.

The historical record largely affirms that view. Relativity is true, CFCs did cause the ozone hole, HIV causes AIDS, tobacco is bad for you, and yes, greenhouse gas emissions do cause climate change.

Bridging the gap

Are there ways in which such gaps between scientific knowledge and public acceptance can be bridged?

Potentially, yes.

There is much evidence that the framing of information facilitates its acceptance when it no longer threatens people's worldview. HI individuals are more likely to accept climate science when the proposed solution involves nuclear power than when it involves emission cuts.

Similarly, the messenger matters. HPV vaccination is more likely to be found acceptable by HI individuals if arguments in its favour are presented by someone clearly identified as hierarchical-individualistic.

Conversely, acceptance of HPV vaccination collapses if the exact same information is presented by a bearded, latte-sipping academic with long hair and short pants. Arnold Schwarzenegger's strong support for action against climate change is thus of considerable import.

Finally, people are more likely to accept inconvenient evidence after their worldviews have been affirmed. In a nutshell, if people are given an opportunity to take pride in their embrace of free markets and unregulated enterprise, they are subsequently more likely to accept scientific evidence that would otherwise be deemed too threatening to their worldview.

Luckily — and somewhat ironically — science has some of the best tools needed to understand why people sometimes resist science.

About the author Dr Stephan Lewandowsky is cognitive scientist at the University of Western Australia. His research examines people's memory and decision making, with particular emphasis on how people respond to corrections of misinformation.

Comments (75)

Comments for this story are now closed. If you would like to have your say on this story, please email ABC Science

Robert Foster :

17 Nov 2011 9:28:40am

Everyone is selective about the science they accept or reject.How do you explain the many vehement supporters of any science relating to global warming who champion naturopathy when all the science shows it can cure no disease. When this clear disparity is pointed out they scoff at the science disproving naturopathy as that of "vested interests". I think people like to accept what makes them feel good ... so anything that supports touchy feely things is good science. Not that difficult to understand really.

Jimbo :

17 Nov 2011 9:37:47pm

@Robert Foster.Who pays for medical research? Who owns patents to drugs? Drug companies.Why is there no medical research on natural remedies? no money to be made.Next time you get two graze from a fall and they are a bit dirty put tea tree oil on one and not the other...see which heals faster happens.And there you have it a little science for yourself.Western medicine has done some incredible things but there are some serious question marks surrounding parts of it.Limited funding occurs for ENV research because many chemists have move from making chemicals to realising their problems.Most env. funding comes from uni's and govt. because of pressure to do the right thing. @Dr Lewandowsky...great piece. should be mandatory reading for all not just scientists

hammer :

21 Nov 2011 7:26:46pm

A lot of our medicine comes from natural chemicals, drug companies have teams looking at chemicals from plants and animals, then if they work they synthesize the chemicals, since it cheaper than sourcing them locally. Naturopathy involves giving people distilled water.

Nikki :

22 Nov 2011 4:17:00am

WHAT????? There are constantly studies done on "natural" remedies. Ever heard of aspirin?? The fact is there are a lot of natural things in prescription medications, the thing being once a natural substance has been proven to prevent or treat some ailment or disease it is then called medicine. Why do you think scientists want to preserve the rain forests? Because there are many potentially life saving plants there. However, scientists won't know which ones have medicinal properties until they are studied in labs, most likely paid for by pharmaceutical companies.

Jo :

22 Nov 2011 5:07:31am

Billions (yes, with a 'b') have been spent on research into natural remedies, for all it's mattered. And questions about conventional (not 'Western') medicine do not translate into trust in alternative therapies (that's poor logic). Citing a motive for bias and corruption is not the same thing as discrediting actual research. Money where your mouth is, please.

cess poole :

17 Nov 2011 12:37:55pm

"Luckily — and somewhat ironically — science has some of the best tools needed to understand why people sometimes resist science."

Not necessarily, psychology also has some great tools.In my case 100 experts have denied scientific evidence, probably due to rank stupidity, and also due to an ego problem; they cannot admit that they were wrong.As a technical specialist I would not now believe anything put foward by the media or climate scientists without seeing the raw data, the multivariate analysis, and the interpretative basis.As an example, after the "Big Bang" the universe is expanding. Wow, isn't that normally happens after a bang, and since gravity diminishes with the square of distance, it seems logical that the rate of expansion is increasing.

Urien Rakarth :

18 Nov 2011 12:01:06pm

Gravity vanishes with the cube of the distance, and the rate wouldn't accelerate without energy - hence, reduced gravity account for red shifting. Besides, it's not matter travelling with respect to space; it's space expanding. This is why the further we look back, the more red shifted light is.

mpf :

JohnR :

I oppose the Scientific evidence due to the lack of Scientific evidence. All science is devoted to creating jobs and wealth for the World Rich. Global warming. Fact or Fiction.?

Global Polition Fact - then Pollution ( Man made will go to sea - again upset the oceans and temperature -- not Carbon - we need CO2 to live.

As for HIB or any vaccine pollutes the "River of Life" our Blood stream. There is enough Science to say Real science is lacking in this area. I use Homoeopathic medicine and it is the only Real Science that works. Why put foreign substances in the Blood live Monkey tissue - Pig - Chicken.

Johan :

07 Dec 2011 5:47:36pm

Science > fantasy. Prove your claims, cite your sources, expect to be confronted when you make wild claims you can't back up. Life spans increased greatly with modern science. Living life your way would result in mass deaths all over the world. I hope you learn your lesson rather than miseducated your children.

Chris :

17 Nov 2011 3:49:54pm

Thoroughly enjoyed this article.

One thing I have observed in my short time on this world (25 years) is that the general public constantly express strong opinions on subjects they know very little about. (Climate change and NBN are prime examples)

Sadly there is no way to change this, and in groups, people are extremely stupid and fear change.

blixen :

17 Nov 2011 4:41:38pm

Stephan - you don't mention the religious nutters that beleive that God created the world in 6 days some 6,000 years ago.

A large number hold this belief, like the Baptists, and have made it a foundation of their faith, even though it is a comparatively recent development, mostly it seems as a reaction to the attacks by evolution-supporting nutters on the church in the latter half of the 19th century.

So here we have a mass movement with a feeling of "us against them".

"Us" being the creationists and anti-evolutionists denying whole worlds of science about the origins of the Earth and the fossil record etc etc against those that believe in the theory of evolution and support the science of Earths and animal origins, the "them".

Neither of these groups fit into the HI or EC mould you have mentioned.

There seems a very strong desire in some humans to belong to a group, even if it is so profoundly in error as the above creationists. This clearly has to do with their particular wordview, but it does not seem to be HI or EC to me.

What interests me, though, is how do the views of these creationists correlate with views on climate change?

Pragmatism :

17 Nov 2011 8:31:20pm

Science is a process, a methodology, that is iterative and evolutionary. It requires two things: data, and a model with which to interpret the data. The data is limited to what you can collect using the tools at your disposal. And the model is mostly going to be an improvement on a previous model.

For example, say someone said 2000 years ago that germs caused disease. Interesting proposition, but the data collection tools at your disposal 2000 years ago wouldn't have a hope of collecting the data required to prove your theory, and the model itself (existance of germs) would be so far fetched as to be fantastical. In short, someone such as yourself living 2000 years ago would have called anyone that suggested germs caused disease a nutter, and held up science as proof.

Eternity stretches out in front of us and behind. Do you believe that we on this planet are the first intelligent life in all of existence? Do you believe we are the most advanced?

Gigaboomer ®:

25 Nov 2011 9:46:38pm

Blixen, or how about the religious nutters who convince themselves and others that everything made itself from nothing for no reason, crazy eh? Seriously though, creationism is on the rise simply because the real science actually supports it. Have a look at the RATE project into helium leak rates from zircons just as one example off the top of my head, there are many, many more. Of course I suspect you will reject this evidence based not on the evidence itself but because it challenges your worldview, just as the 'consensus' of scientists do. Modern science is locked into a paradigm that rejects anything that doesn't conform, a massive 'group think' if you will. That's not to say there is any kind of conspiracy, just that naturalism is all they have known so is the dominant worldview, my point is that science is not the bastion of impartiality this author claims it is.

As far as climate change goes, I think the evidence for the climate changing is real but is it caused by human activity? I don't know. Much interpretation of evidence is certainly flawed, the reading of ice cores for example where many hundreds of thousands of non existent years are read into the data due to the paradigm is but one example. But what I do know is that this issue is now central to a liberal worldview so is very political, which hardly inspires confidence for unbiased research.

wave function :

BacterialOverlords :

10 Jan 2012 3:28:35pm

Gigaboomer, seriously, you need to first understand the theories before you go talking about them. Firstly, everything did not "...[make] itself from nothing for no reason..." There are various, scientific, theories how life began on earth and NONE of them try to say that it arose from nothing (unlike certain other, more supernatural, theories). As for "real science" supporting YEC, please spare me. There is no convincing scientific evidence anywhere that the earth is only 6000 years old. In the case of the RATE project, i assume you mean the helium diffusion rate project headed by one Dr Humphreys? That project wouldn't receive a pass mark in a primary school science test. There are so many questionable assumptions and fudged data points. For example, one of Humphreys main points is that zircons diffusion properties would not be affected by subsurface pressures and temps because it is "too hard". Yet there are scientifically validated experiments which show that "...under 250 bars of pressure and at temp[s] as high as 700 degrees, Helium would take tens to hundreds of millions of years to just partially diffuse out of garnet, a "hard" silicate mineral like zircon." Scientists and others from all walks of life (including many YEC's and OEC's) are coming out of the woodwork to point out these faults in Humphreys data. Modern science is not "locked into" anything. There are many examples of scientists changing theories on the basis of new evidence. Admittedly there is sometimes skepticism surrounding evidence that fundamentally challenges one of the more widely accepted theories, as with the theory of relativity or evolution, but science really is about constantly questioning and incorporating new evidence, then fitting the theories to the evidence, rather than the evidence to the theories. Science really IS the bastion of impartiality, oh I wont deny that there are certainly individual scientists out there who let their prejudices get in the way of objectivity, but on the whole the scientific community is much more interested in UNDERSTANDING.

Anyway, my point is that it is bad form to talk about things that you have no real understanding of. Creationism, or ID, is not accepted as a scientific theory precisely due to the fundamental LACK of evidence supporting it and the MOUNTAINS of evidence that support the currently accepted theory.

Are We There Yet :

17 Nov 2011 5:39:34pm

This article seems to be pushing ‘Man Made Climate Change’.The biggest con of the 20th century was the Y2K Bug. The biggest con of the 21st century, is man made climate change.Scientists like other people will lie for money or to suit their own agenda. Man made climate change is one of those lies. Our climate has been changing ever since this planet existed. We need to clean up our act and stop polluting and wasting this planets resources but I don’t believe we are altering the climate. We already have alternative fuels but they seem to want to tax us rather than introduce these fuels. Did you mention ‘Coal Seam Gas Mining’. We go from supposedly destroying the atmosphere and climate, to knowingly destroying the planet itself. Poisoning the water supply the ground and the atmosphere (I hope you don’t deny this). The government seems to want to push ‘Coal Seam Gas’. If that is not hypocritical, I don’t know what is. You mentioned nuclear power. What about the waste, what about when something goes wrong. Who is the first to inform the people? The media. Will the government say, here is some compensation, we will foot the bill to move you because this area is now contaminated (eg: Fukushima). Maybe we can deny this.Some people work in various engineering fields. I work with refrigeration and electronics. I understand how many chemicals work, what they can do to people and the environment. I understand what mobile phones and their hidden towers can do to people and the environment (I don’t see you spruiking to fix this problem or do you deny it). YES! Clean up our home and stop wasting our finite resources, because right now it is the only one we have. We better learn to live with climate change, because climate change is with us whether we like it or not. HA! ‘weather’ we like it or not.

Are We There Yet :

19 Nov 2011 9:26:01pm

How many people have moved back home or back into the area. Not because of mother nature but because of the radiation in the area. All the food must be checked before it is eaten. How many years will this take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. A report of the International Atomic Energy Agency,[7] examines the environmental consequences of the accident. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[10] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[11] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[12] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[13] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[14]

M. Troupe :

17 Nov 2011 7:17:52pm

The article presents scientists and scientific inquiry as if it were immune from all of the influences and bias that he rightly condemns in the world. Scientists are influenced by financial, social, and power concerns as much as anyone else. Additionally science is constantly changing as new information buries old theories in a growing graveyard of outdated ideas. To be sure, many of the things that Dr. L holds to be the indisputable "facts" of science today, will a source for chuckles in a generation or two. If not sooner. I wonder if the author is willing to apply the limitations of human nature to himself and his peers? He seems to put himself on a pedestal that doesn't fit...

Tim :

Rigid adherence to the scientific method, a systematic and thorough process of peer review, and the availability of source data and experimental techniques.

There simply is no better system available to humans to make sense of the world. And it does!

One striking, recent example: independent, privately funded research into the global warming, the largest largest contributing donor being the Koch brothers (as Phil Plait puts it: "über-conservatives who have pumped millions of dollars into climate change denial").

Abel Adamski :

30 Nov 2011 2:37:47am

Funny, in the US the Discovery channel is not showing the seventh and last part of the Frozen Planet series as it shows the impact of the warming planet on the Arctic and Frozen areas of the planet, Will be too controversial for the programmed Americans. The reality is too confrontational and the public may start questioning the media's veracity in economic and political areas as well. A can of worms the opening of which it would be more convenient to avoid as long as possible

John Robertson :

17 Nov 2011 11:15:15pm

The reason many people correctly and reasonably reject 'science' as it is manifested by the "global warming/climate change" scam is that it is not science. Any scientist who classifies carbon or atmospheric CO2 as 'pollution' should be ashamed of him or her self.

The main role of CO2 in the air is to provide all humans, all animals and all plants - terrestrial or aquatic - with their food.

It has a minor role in influencing temperature. The temperature swings, in and out of ice ages, over the past 50,000 years when there was no man-made CO2 shows that temperature can change greatly for a raft of reasons with no change in CO2.

Since the year 1900 world population has more than quadrupled and average life expectancy at birth has more than doubled (from 30 years to 69 years). These are not fanciful projections but undeniable events. Every morsel of the food to more than sustain that huge population rise came and continues to come via photosynthesis from atmospheric CO2 - all 0.04% of it! The annual financial benefit the world already obtains from the rise in CO2 and the resultant rise in plant growth and availability of food is massive and runs to $trillions per annum. More is still to come as CO2 rises further. It will be needed as our numbers continue to rise.

Nature as a whole is also a massive beneficiary of more CO2. Indeed how 'Greens' can excoriate carbon and CO2 which makes plants green and keeps them that way is one of the minor mysteries of our time.

The biggest beneficiaries of this scam will be the financial manipulators who are already salivating over the bonuses to be had from 'carbon trading'; and these will not end with actual trading. There will be derivatives and derivatives of derivatives with bonus money at every turn.

As with all scams many will lose and a few will gain.

Be in no doubt where the 'misinformation' lies - it is with those who call carbon a pollutant.

aha :

21 Nov 2011 3:05:54pm

Back up your claims. The evidence of climate change is significant and not something that can be just ignored because you don't like it. You seem to believe that all of those people, those 98ish percent of people in the relevant fields, are all liars. Isn't that remarkably convenient for you. Can you imagine why they would all lie? Are they all sociopaths who want the world to get hotter? Is that how you see people, as a bunch of sociopaths? You may be revealing more about yourself than you realize.

SallyStrange :

24 Nov 2011 6:34:06pm

It's so funny, this whole "CO2 is natural, how can it be a dangerous pollutant" thing.

Well then, let's stop regulating the amount of nitrogen and phosphates that are permitted to be released in our rivers and lakes. After all, nitrogen and phosphates are crucial plant nutrients, so how could it be possible to have too much of them??

Abel Adamski :

30 Nov 2011 1:25:08am

John, The article highlights your unspoken point. Try reading up on snowball earth,it lost it's CO2 blanket and froze over for Billions of years as a result. Read up on Global extinctions and the reasons why. One was due to excess CO2, it lifted temperatures and ocean acidification releasing the frozen methane leading to a runaway event and one of the major extinctions. Anything in excess is a pollutant, the issue is what is an excess?? The oceans are warming

Oksanna Zoschenko :

18 Nov 2011 12:12:54am

Looked in vain on this website for an opinion piece setting forth the opposing viewpoint. Although from a circular-thinking Deep Green perspective, if the catastrophic warming view is the only scientific view, then there is no valid opposing viewpoint. I guess that is why the IPCC stuffed their reports with one-third Greenpeace references and excluded the scientists that disagreed with the scare. Come to think of it, perhaps Donna Laframboise could have been invited to contribute a response to this, after all, an investigative journalist has at least as much credibility on climate change as a psychologist trying to pathologize dissent.

Tex :

19 Nov 2011 6:18:29pm

I think you've missed the point of this opinion piece.

In an article of ~70 sentences, you've focussed on ~8 that mention climate change (and at least two of those are tangential mentions). In an article that uses 4 examples to make its point, you jump on that one.

Jim7 :

18 Nov 2011 2:58:06am

What I would like to know is from an evolutionary perspective what are the advantages of having two 'types' of fundamental personality types that drive decision making? Conservative vs. true liberals. How are both maintained in the population and what is advantage of this? My question would only be valid if there was a genetic basis to the two types which I think is a possibility considering some evidence for brain structural differences between conservatives and liberals. Also, conservatives are apparently more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences. This area needs some research!

Bruce. :

19 Nov 2011 10:46:17pm

From an evolutionary perspective we humans face each day as it comes. The most important is to survive to the next day. No point in thinking long term if you don't survive to the next day. Even if unwise in regard to the future, humans can mostly cope using our brains to overcome most situations even if caused by ourselves due to our lack of foresight. The catch come occasionally where we do commit to a path which becomes a dead end. Such was the case with the people of Easter Island. Unlucky for them.

Abel Adamski :

30 Nov 2011 2:32:08am

Each aspect has its very important role. Progress and innovate followed by consolidate and grow/build and so the cycle continues. Too much of either is a destructive imbalance and has destroyed most civilisations. Yin and Yang

Rob :

18 Nov 2011 11:28:06am

It has been my experience (which is admittedly limited) that those involved in the anti-vaccination movement are highly sceptical, and even openly hostile to science in general (including climate science). The one's i've talked to are admittedly consistent. They don't advocate or reject science based on whether it reflects their broader world view.

senior :

Abel Adamski :

evan :

18 Nov 2011 3:57:03pm

I love how "global warming" has become "climate change" once they realised that the earth was cooling."The death toll from inaction on climate change, currently estimated ... at 150,000 annually..."So, is this drawn from the recent report (by the IPCC no less) that claims that the signs of cimate change won't be seen for decades, and there is only "medium confidence" that human activity is behind "extreme rainfall events"? It's especially telling that they now say "it would take a while for the effects of climate change to become visible", while all the alarmist prophets are merrily trumpeting glacial melt and extreme rainfall as evidence of their doomsaying.Your further claims about "Egalitarian-communitarian (EC)" sounds an awful lot like communism-lite. I agree that society should take more care of individuals, but to use that as an argument linked to 'climate change' is laughable.

Geoff Sherrington :

18 Nov 2011 9:59:32pm

The title is "Why do people reject science?". This is a straw man. Scientists who reject science are no longer scientists. They become people who have rejected science. Non-scientists who reject science do not know enough about it to have standing. Let's stick to a discussion about scientists.Regarding the narrower field of the poor quality of much climate science, here is a letter I had published in ‘The Australian’ of 15 February 2006: “THERE is an excellent argument for curbing the public statements of scientists like those from CSIRO, a former employer of mine. Scientists, like the public, cover a spectrum of beliefs, some of which are based on emotion rather than science. There are greenie scientists in CSIRO and there are honest ones. Human nature being what it is, there are private agendas pushed by CSIRO people that would make your jaw drop. An example is the selection of Australian weather recording sites used to construct the temperature measurements of the continent, which play a big part in southern hemisphere weather models. From the beginning, most sites that showed little or no temperature rise or a fall from, say, the 1880s to now were rejected. The few sites selected to represent Australia were mainly from capital cities and under suspicion for “heat island” effects. I could give example after example as it was one of my employment functions to distill the best results from the bogus on many matters related to energy/greenhouse/nuclear etc. I found few truly objective submissions among those masquerading as science.”This was one of the messages that first started awareness of the state of global warming in Australia. I was roundly taken to task for it. With the pasage of time, I have gained enormous agreement. In that time, the fundamental problem I raised has not been answered.Perhaps scientists leave science when zealotry exceeds evidence.

Matthew :

I love how "global warming" has become "climate change" once they realised that the earth was cooling.

I love how climate change sceptics can lie without blushing.

Try checking facts before making such glib and arrogant remarks.

Climate scientists have long said that global warming is the cause and climate change is the result.

Consider these comments from the controversy over whether cigarette smoking was dangerous to our health:

“...The documents also reveal that the tobacco companies helped manufacture the smoking controversy by funding scientific research that was intended to obfuscate and prolong the debate about smoking and health...”

“...In 1994, heads of the major U.S. tobacco companies testified before Congress that the evidence that cigarette smoking caused diseases such as cancer and heart disease was inconclusive, that cigarettes were not addictive, and that they did not market to children. Less than 1 month after this testimony, a box containing confidential documents from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation was delivered to the University of California at San Francisco. What was revealed in these documents was evidence that the tobacco industry had for decades known and accepted the fact that cigarettes caused premature death, considered tobacco to be addictive, and that their programs to support scientific research on smoking and health had been a sham (1-6)...”

“...If the past 50 years have taught us anything, it is that the tobacco industry cannot be trusted to put the public's interest above their profits no matter what they say...”

Source:http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/6/1070.full

If the climate scientists are right then millions of children are most definitely at risk from the results of global warming and climate change. As a father it disturbs me as to why climate scientists do not sue climate change sceptics for libel, slander, defamation, and scientific fraud.

That is a genuine reason to be sceptical.

If the climate scientists truly believed their children were at risk why haven't they sued?

Loree :

22 Nov 2011 3:18:23am

You've got the right idea, but the wrong villian.It wasn't the enviros who changed the use of this term, but rather high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in Bush government and the Republican party, spearheaded by leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz, who in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from "global warming" to "climate change". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange.

Luntz wrote that :

“'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

Abel Adamski :

Bruce. :

19 Nov 2011 10:36:50pm

I think sometimes the ardent supporters of science can sometimes promote that view with misguided enthusiasm oversating the claims that science really makes.Such a claim may be made just after a severe cyclone for instance. The claim may be made like "See that was the biggest cyclone in recorded history so that proves climate change".No it doesn't. But a trend of increasing cyclone severity or other such analysis would support the view. Such overstated claims give amunition to vested interests to discredit science.

SallyStrange :

24 Nov 2011 6:37:31pm

TV meterologists and lay people make claims like that.

Actual climate scientists invariably say something along the lines of, "It is impossible to attribute any one event to climate change, however this [insert natural disaster here] is consistent with the pattern of larger, more severe storms dropping higher amounts of precipitation that we would expect from the climate change model."

Of course, that's WAY to wordy for a TV soundbite, so it gets condensed.

Pete of Perth :

Pedro of Adelaide :

20 Nov 2011 1:38:44pm

"Relativity is true", you declare. Well, so is quantum mechanics. (I assume you think quantum mechanics is true, too.) Yet they are totally incompatible. So, either one or both must be wrong. A real scientist would say relativity explains some things, quantum mechanics explains others. Neither can explain all. I'm not surprised you're a dogmatic true-believer in human caused climate change.

ginckgo :

Andrew :

22 Nov 2011 8:14:16am

First, we never arrive at scientific truth by consensus. Second science is not a 'worldview' it is a method, the out workings of which may or may not support your world view. It worries me that 'science' has become a monologue arrived at by consensus and is no longer a dialogue arrive at via the method of falsifiability. This article is a case in point.

Abel Adamski :

30 Nov 2011 2:27:19am

I suspect that may have a bearing on the anti climate change and AGW movement, let "nature" (with some help)cull the Worlds population by a few Billion or so over the next century and bring us back below a Billion. Do the Herod wash our hands and claim innocence thing, it was all natures fault

Predictions of human induced catastrophe are based on high climate sensitivity and positive feedback. This is a hypothesis that IS in debate within the scientific community. No-one claims that 7 billion people living on our planet haven't had an impact on the environment or the climate. What is still under scientific debate and scrutiny however is the degree of impact and the alarmism and catastrophism being promoted for ideological reasons.

Since most human beings live for today, working and struggling to provide for their children today - not for possible future generations a hundred years from now - the green religion worldview has a problem.

Human nature is far more complex and at the same time much simpler than most of us realise. Most people simply don't give a shit. We wouldn't have more than 2 billion people on our planet basically starving - if we did "share and care". You can try to regulate human beings and "force" them to "your" worldview. But that is counter-productive. The backlash in Australia to catastrophism is already erupting. Revolutions have started for much less.

You and your colleagues simply don't get it Stephan. The majority of those who "have" and the majority of those who wish to "have" don't want the world economic system and way of doing business to change. They want more of the same.

Jim Andrews :

22 Nov 2011 12:54:16pm

Unfortunately, "science" is also prone to blind spots and errors due to limiting worldviews. Science is not an infallible, objective body of knowledge. For example, in my own early days of beginning research I knew for a fact (like Robert Foster) that natural therapies were of virtually no clinical use. Beyond a mild stomach upset or a minor rash they were not worth bothering with. I also knew there was no scientific research to show that they worked. However, unexpectedly I had a "world-changing", first-hand experience of their efficacy in curing very serious illness... The resulting cognitive dissonance was disabling, to say the least. For two weeks after returning to the lab I was incapable of doing any research. I was immobilised as my previous "rock-solid" worldview was forcibly torn down and replaced with something else entirely. I suddenly discovered there was a HUGE amount of good quality scientific research showing that many nutritional supplements and herbs had undisputed therapeutic properties. Of course, this research had been there all along. Mistaking my limiting worldview for “knowledge” I had somehow, incredibly, been able to ignore or dismiss for years, scores of good quality research papers. Conducting my own social experiment I was able to demonstrate that a published, peer-reviewed trial of a herbal treatment could not be believed by most of my professional peers. However, if I substituted a well-known antibiotic’s name in place of the herb then the results were undisputed. In both cases the scientific methodology was identical – but in one case (the antibiotic) it was seen as sound and in the other case (the herb) it was not and the results were dismissed.Clearly worldviews can affect much more than the public’s acceptance or rejection of scientific consensus. Particular worldviews can be shared by whole professions, societies and cultures. They can affect what questions are asked, and not asked, in research, whether research findings are published or not and the whole milieu in which research is conducted.

Gr8Ape :

Davy :

23 Nov 2011 7:59:01pm

Why is a cognitive scientist now an expert on 'so-called' climate change? This cognitive scientist should review his own thinking before telling the rest of us how stupid we are. The arrogance of the human race is quite astounding - to even imagine the human race can 'change the weather' one way or the other is nothing short lunacy.

Abel Adamski :

30 Nov 2011 2:09:07am

Cloud seeding for one. AGW is about influencing the Earth's Climate cycles. However I suspect it is becoming too late to do anything like enough. Once you and your compatriots start truly suffering as a result, who will you blame. Believe what you will, however accept the consequences without complaint, it was your choice

Clive Wawn :

05 Dec 2011 9:36:24pm

Late 1970's early 80's scientists recommended that cloud seeding be done, and the Pollies accepted the science - to WARM the planet. Yes, WARM it - Pollies world wide were panicking because science told us we were heading for a possible Ice Age. It apparently was only months away from it being done. Aren't we lucky the "SKEPTICS" won this argument.

DavidRPL :

Nyknyk :

16 Feb 2012 10:07:39pm

Actually, the Learned Dr is an expert on how we think. I believe his little essay on denialism (of all kinds) is insightful and completely appropriate within the context of the current (so called) debate in this country. Only rationalism can save us now, however uncomfortable that may be for some (most?).BTW, I'm a humanist, and I believe in all the known universe there is nothing more amazing, nor miraculous, as our own minds. how's that for hubris!

SallyStrange :

24 Nov 2011 6:29:11pm

I know there are these HI people in the world but they really baffle me. Why would anyone want to cause harm to other people just to preserve a belief system? Surely beliefs are not as important as actual people. Yet time and time again, they demonstrate that they hold their beliefs above the welfare of their fellow humans. Like when the GOP audience loudly cheered for allowing a hypothetical person without health insurance who suddenly fell deathly ill die because of his lack of insurance. Why are there so many of these people? What can be done? If an authority they trust starts telling them to act more compassionately, will they obey? Or will they find ways to weasel around the requirement to be compassionate, as they have done with Jesus' message of brotherly love?

Gigaboomer ®:

25 Nov 2011 9:27:29pm

People don't reject science, just biased interpretations of science. What you and most scientists who are stuck in the paradigm don't seem to understand is that everyone is biased by their worldview, politics or personal agenda. Now I'm certainly no expert on climate, but based on the way the philosophy of naturalism so pollutes the science world I would certainly not be surprised if the ruling liberal worldview in the sciences has something to do with the 'consensus'.

James :

Clive Wawn :

05 Dec 2011 9:20:18pm

What a load of poppycock. If people didn't challenge the "science", often at great risk to themselves, then the world would still be flat; the Sun revolve around the Earth; The Universe encased in a sphere; the heart the seat of emotion; the brain a useless piece of jelly; and I could go on for hours.If humans are responsible for GW with their 3% contribution, what cause GW in the past? CO2 levels have been recorded 23 times what they are now with a 'normal climate'. Earth is currently at it's coldest level outside an Ice Age so it can only really warm, or tip back to an Ice Age again. Coal is in the Antarctic - proof of a sub tropical/tropical climate at some stage abt 65M years ago (and it hasn't moved much since then).So, I don't go blindly believing scientist necessarily, especially when many are changing ranks themselves. There are a number changing their stories because they were told what to report by their sponsors, not what they actually found. The simple fact to all this is, there are far too many people on this Planet and too many with vested interests.Cheers

Andrew Harwood :

06 Dec 2011 8:34:54pm

When you don't even know how many volcanoes lie beneath the sea off the east coast of Australia, how could you determine whether it is man made emissions that are causing the wind to change direction. 25yrs ago I believed that burning all this coal was not good for the world, but I will not agree that man is responsible for every weather event you see out your window. The average person doesn't know what they are standing on. How can you expect an informed decision from the population?

Frank Aquino :

19 Jan 2012 2:07:45am

Here is a quote from a book called "The Joey God-Allah Virus" which might help answer the original question since all human behaviour is about SELF-ESTEEM.QUOTE STARTS (This is Joey speaking):It turns out that self-esteem is actually the future tense of survival. Survival is (obviously) a past tense thing. Survival is a statement that you just survived the most recent threat. Self-esteem, on the other hand is about believing you have the right stuff to survive the next threat – that you’ve got life all figured out. Without that belief – which is to say without self-esteem – you’d be terrified to venture out of the cave, convinced that you probably wouldn’t make it through the day. Even today I can see that humans believe maintaining self-esteem is important, but they are surprisingly sloppy about differentiating what causes it. They take a blunt-instrument approach to what is a very intricate problem. Every second they’ve survived reinforces the notion that all their currently held beliefs, behaviours and knowledge are what got them through the day safely; and will continue to serve them well into the future. Sometimes that’s right, sometimes that’s wrong; but without unbiased self-critical analysis they’ll never know what actually worked, and what just tagged along for the ride. Unfortunately sorting the wheat from the chaff is very hard work and fraught with pitfalls, so after a while it becomes easier not to try. With self-esteem firmly rooted in everything they currently believe – whether it makes sense or not – they dare not tinker with perfection because they have survived perfectly well up until now. Questioning those beliefs could have devastating consequences on self-esteem, and therefore their expectation of future survival.This for example is why some children will never step on a crack in the pavement – because they never have in the past and they’ve always survived. It is also why Sharmah chose never to wash his body ever again after he invented the woolly mammoth trap – just in case his body odour had something to do with his success. So unanalysed, self-esteem can lead to some pretty distorted conclusions.Incidentally I don’t mean to belittle self-esteem – it’s an essential survival skill. But sorting out what contributes to survival and what simply tags along to make you feel smug is actually more important than enjoying the smugness itself. Knowing which foods are edible and which are poisonous based on past experimentation is a useful bit of knowledge for a hunter-gatherer. Such knowledge will boost self-esteem considerably when showing others what to do. But believing he always gets it right because he rubs his lucky rabbit’s foot clockwise could quickly ruin his day next time he tastes a new mushroom. Then again, he might get lucky and get away with it. QUOTE ENDS

pinkmini :

01 Feb 2012 7:56:26pm

There's a difference between Medical research & other science. I think people are bombarded by the non-Medical sciences on how to live, as "science" has only been a current word over say the last 40 years.